Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS: Vermont Campaign Finance Law Is Unconstitutional (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My favorite (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    e. The record does not show a particular danger of corruption to justify such stringent limits on constitutional rights.

    Yeah, right. More like the record does not show that such stringent limits do jack to put any limit on corruption.

    •  Donations aren't usually the problem (4+ / 0-)

      with corrupt politicians. They're too sneaky to have their bribes itemized by the FEC.

      Take Duke Cunningham. The problem was that contractors were buying a lot nice shit for him, not that they were giving him lots of contributions, both through PACs and individuals (though they were).

    •  'the record' (0+ / 0-)

      Here's some of what the plurality said on corruption:

      The respondents have not shown, for example, any dramatic increase in corruption or its appearance in Vermont; nor have they shown that expenditure limits are the only way to attack that problem. . . .

      Rather, the basic justifications the State has advanced in support of such limits are those present in Buckley. The record contains no indication that, for example, corruption (or its appearance) in Vermont is significantly more serious a matter than elsewhere. Indeed, other things being equal, one might reasonably believe that a contribution of say, $250 (or $450) to a candidate’s campaign was less likely to prove a corruptive force than the far larger contributions at issue in the other campaign finance cases we have considered.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site